Part-time colleagues' contracted hours : DEAL

nuns · Post by **nuns** » 04 Feb 2018, 14:54

Part-time colleagues’ contracted hours will be jointly reviewed every March and September.
Where appropriate, increased contracted hours will be offered to reflect the hours actually worked and planned

So with this part of deal if ive worked 40 hours every week is it just down to dom who he decides gets hours and how long contracted hours last.... bit like p/t getting made up to full time at xmas but never even got told about it.

Bboingg · Post by **Bboingg** » 04 Feb 2018, 15:15

How many ask for the results of their bi annual review - time to start pushing that and looking after you own interests

Post by **POSTMAN** » 04 Feb 2018, 15:24

It's the duty not the person, just because Bob mops up the docket it does not mean he should be full time.
If the 'duty' constantly has hrs added to it then the rep should push for that 'duty' to be made full time.
Who gets that duty is then decided in the normal way that vacant duties get signed for.

The joint review is years old and while some have been made up nationwide not enough is being done by reps (and other colleagues) to push the matter.
Too many reps and colleagues have swallowed the introduction of part timers without pushing the matter further.

midvillain · Post by **midvillain** » 04 Feb 2018, 16:32

I find this difficult. If you're having part timers doing o/t early on, prepping walks etc, then obv that means more hours are needed in the office, but then those hours would go on seniority, maybe to people who haven't been doing the early starts, and the people who have been would then lose out.

Yamr1 · Post by **Yamr1** » 04 Feb 2018, 17:11

My office the manager advances the mail every morning and only full timers get the overtime.
So he can lapse more dutys
So much for the agenda for growth agreement

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 04 Feb 2018, 17:15

POSTMAN wrote:Too many reps and colleagues have swallowed the introduction of part timers without pushing the matter further.

If you've got 20 hours of regular overtime in your office and 4 part-time staff on 30 hrs is it better to have four guys on 35 hrs or the two senior guys on 40 hrs and the other 2 trying to live on 30 hrs?

Don't worry it's not a test, there is no right or wrong answer.
That's more or less a simplistic version of the dilemma facing reps in some offices.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 04 Feb 2018, 17:24

fishtank wrote:
POSTMAN wrote:Too many reps and colleagues have swallowed the introduction of part timers without pushing the matter further.
If you've got 20 hours of regular overtime in your office and 4 part-time staff on 30 hrs is it better to have four guys on 35 hrs or the two senior guys on 40 hrs and the other 2 trying to live on 30 hrs?

Don't worry it's not a test, there is no right or wrong answer.
That's more or less a simplistic version of the dilemma facing reps in some offices.

I get that, the thing is why have you got 4 guys on 30hrs in the 1st place.
Every man and his dog knows what has been going on over the last few years and no one seem to be challenging it.

How many times have we heard over the 'years' that everybody coming in is a part timer, Royal Mail have mugged us of off big time.
And The CWU have let it happen, now they are gonna look at the resourcing model lol...w#nkers!

redneck · Post by **redneck** » 04 Feb 2018, 18:06

Once again the company and union make the words of agreements easy to manipulate at local level, in this case 'where appropriate' means the company will not do aanything and the union might try but get absolutely nowhere because the screws argue that it is 'not appropriate'. The definitions of these things are too faint, and we should not agree to wording such as this.

Post by **bigal383** » 04 Feb 2018, 19:03

My case has gone to the divisional union reps regarding this matter you will get all the senior full time men on here or these part timers who dont work the hours thinking they can get it if hours come up. If tou read the agendga for growth agreement it states the hours worked to be reviewed every 6 months. If you are making your hours up by doing rows and loops this does not count if you are in the office and on a full time duty for a number of months and have worked the full time from start time to finish time including ips then you have a case.
I have done the early ips and worked on full time duty for a year this should mean my hours should be reviewed not the offices

Post by **bigal383** » 04 Feb 2018, 19:07

Read above its the hours worked by the individual

Yamr1 · Post by **Yamr1** » 04 Feb 2018, 19:26

In my work the unit rep doesn't even do the weekly resource meeting , no rota for overtime the gaffer only wants the full time staff in so he can lapse more etc faster ips .......
Even this Saturday he was lapsing dutys and had spare body's to sort d/d ????

Is this just my office so they can get there bonus and make figures look good ????

Yamr1 · Post by **Yamr1** » 04 Feb 2018, 19:27

LOL agenda for growth my arse

Yamr1 · Post by **Yamr1** » 04 Feb 2018, 19:30

So much for the D/D are next week work load ....
Get them sorted on Saturday so they can lapse more for a performance bonus

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 04 Feb 2018, 19:35

POSTMAN wrote: I get that, the thing is why have you got 4 guys on 30hrs in the 1st place.

Because the agreed tools ( both kinds) said that the hours weren't there for full time staff. We knew the hours were there but how do you argue with spreadsheets telling you the traffic is down and if Bob and Frank sort to standard we have to cut the indoor hours and all the time the area rep is nodding wisely and you bring the divi rep in wearing his Armani suit and he agrees that it's either part-time staff ot even longer than long delivery spans?

I know you guys had different rules from us but it's not as simple as you think, so now we have part-time staff doing full-time hours and you could go to warp factor 10 disagreement and nobody, not the area rep, the divi rep or what the now call area operations manager will budge because they were the f***ers who f****d it up in the first place.

tommyrep · Post by **tommyrep** » 05 Feb 2018, 12:24

redneck wrote:Once again the company and union make the words of agreements easy to manipulate at local level, in this case 'where appropriate' means the company will not do aanything and the union might try but get absolutely nowhere because the screws argue that it is 'not appropriate'. The definitions of these things are too faint, and we should not agree to wording such as this.

I agree. Agreements need to be worded in a way that is easily understood, or loophole free.
We are not lawyers, or masters of the English language that is open to interpretation.
RM employ clever lawyers to dissect the agreements in fine detail, then via DSMs onto DOMs to argue the case at DO levels to people - no disrespect- who are not so savvy, or weaker small units with no representation, to do as they like. We all know this happens throughout the country. Unfortunately the union allows such discrepancies with scant regard to those staff/units who get shafted on a daily basis, DSMs/DOMs are getting away with murder. Part Time staff particularly are abused inssessently. Many new starts are left to the wolves, unprotected, and sadly more senior staff are not interested. This then festers, moving from weak miss informed PT staff onto the weaker FT staff within a unit without the gumption to challenge what is exploitation at its best- at it’s worst bullying, intimidation and harassment!

ROYALMAILCHAT